Fine except that this was an aggressive war from the outset, a crusade.
Based on what?
The history of the American century and its players. The revelations of the Downing Street Memorandum, the Rycroft document because he was the signatory of this British Cabinet Document.
This showed that the evidence for going to war was in fact meagre and that propaganda, required to bring a reluctant electorate on side was skewed to emphasise the more fearful Oif imagined aspects, and the righteousness of the cause, a dichotomy of good and evil. This has continued following the consequences of the war only now it is the Terrorists (a name for people who individually do what in this and Vietnam the generals did from on high not strapping exposives to their soldiers)
Australia is not listed in the document. However it seems unlikely we were uninformed given our commitment to the USA Sept 2001 (ANZAS) and by mid 2002 we were involved in CENT-COM the planning in the US of the war.
Agreed the paper link is not available though presumably must be in Government documents or even in muzzled public servants. Similar stone walling to that of the AWB saga. (still to conclude)

Yet we were at war on the basis of mythical weapons a fact demonstrated before the event as likely but unproven (Blix) soon to become the terrorists and links to Iran and Al Queda.
And still going to church still becoming apocalyptic at death of ours not concerned at theirs. The dichotomy continues cognitive dissonance rules. And still does, the next election will be fought on the idea of these Islamic Fascist terrorists. Belief will still rule in the honesty of media and politicians

Yes, fine, but I think it is time to move onto the next war. Australia's next military engagement.

We went into Iraq with virtually no national debate, on the basis of a phone call from Bush to Howard.

US military stategists, in planning what they have labelled the 'long war', will be working on a presumption that Australia will, without fail, without question, throw itself behind them and commit troops. We haven't dissented in 50 years, after all.

If Australians don't anticipate, then in a few years time we will be having the very same debate all over again - lamenting our engagement in Iran?, or North Koria?, or Venezuela?

Henry Reynolds would be proud of this young historian. He refers to the Iraq war as, ‘a war about which our Commonwealth Government thought too little.’ No explanation, no proof; just a bald statement.

All based on his vast experience, of course, as he moved from the schoolyard to the cloisters

Leigh,
Where are those dammed weapons of mass destruction that would kill us within 45 minutes, the reason we invaded? Have any been recovered yet? Those cruel people who said it was all about oil, shame on you.

What then Leigh is the evidence that the Government DID give the war serious thought? As is said in the article, it was supposed to be about WMDs. Howard said the government KNEW (not suspected or thought but KNEW) that Iraq had WMDs. Obviously they gave this little critical thought, because most people in the world strongly suspected the evidence was not there at all. THe government just took the flimsy intelligence as gospel, because they had already made up their mind to support Bush regardless.

The evidence that the Government gave little thought to proper justification of going to war is clear cut, for all to see - that's unless you are determined not to see it.

Actually, I think that the government did give Australia's entry into the war considerable thought and acted on the advise of a number of different agencies and organisations.

Firstly, ONA was providing what was obviously conflicting information about the WMD. One "Whistleblower" was later sacked because he stated that ONA could not substantiate US claims about WMD.

Defence, Foreign Affairs and ASIS would have been providing similar information to ONA, probably contradictory.

The crunch would have come from the Strategic Studies people. In committing to the US, Australia would be affirming an unquestioning strategic alliance. Australia's defence policy, since 1942, has been heavily dependent upon American support, not just in terms of troops on the ground, but in ancillary roles such as maintaining safe tradeways and supply routes.

In effect, the US has been Australia's defence insurance policy. Iraq was paying the premium. Unfortunately Australians have been put in harms way.

Condolences to the family of Private Kovco.